Videophobia
Essay for the Seattle Times, 1/28/92
If you visit independent bookstores, you may have seen the National Book Week poster showing one book surrounded by 51 blank TV screens, with the slogan “One week a year is all we ask.”
The poster exploits an almost religious belief held by many book lovers against TV, despite the fact that talk shows are the greatest sales tool the book business has ever known. Despite the fact that the top book publishers and sellers are stronger than ever, while the big TV networks and many local stations are bleeding red ink.
Literary folks love to think that they’re a downtrodden enclave of true believers surrounded by video heathens. To admit to even owning a TV set is to be labeled as one of the unclean hordes.
Allow me to state this with no guilt or shame: I do not hate television.
It’s the most flexible communications medium in the world today. It combines the languages of film, theater, oratory, music, graphics, and every other visual and performing genre, plus a video vocabulary all its own. Its presence is immediate and intimate, not overwhelming like feature films. It can mix genres and formats much more easily than film, which is pretty much stuck with straight narrative. TV news has grown from a simple headline service to a true window on the world.
But still, the videophobes scoff at the entire medium. Every so often, some parents’ group launches a “turn-off week” campaign, accompanied by publicity campaigns designed to get them on the TV news.
Some videophobic comments involve pseudo-scientific rhetoric, based on vague “evidence” or pure speculation. Author Jerry Mander claims that since the video image is an array of colored dots and lines, it’s inferior to a “real” picture. If that’s true, then we should toss out all pointilist paintings, tile mosaics, and Oriental rugs. Mander also charges that TV consumption is inherently passive and unquestioning. Has he never seen baseball fans arguing over a play? Or a family heatedly discussing a news report? He also can’t explain why literacy rates and per-capita college graduation are higher than in the pre-tube ’40s (though still not high enough for our high-tech society).
Many TV-bashers, including Mander, came of age during the 1960s and have failed to appreciate all of society’s changes since then. They talk as if there were still just three or four channels all showing bland shows like “My Three Sons”.
But their prejudices really go back further, to an old intellectual prejudice against oral and visual expression. Before the Protestant Reformation, religious faith had been inspired largely by the spoken liturgy and visual icons. But after Martin Luther and moveable type, many Europeans believed that ideas were somehow purer when expressed in writing. They believed that words informed and enlightened, while pictures seduced and deceived.
Of course, words can deceive very easily indeed. Holocaust-revisionist “scholars” use reasonable-sounding rhetoric and seemingly authoritative documentation to assert that six million Jews weren’t systematically murdered — unless you notice that their only “substantiation” comes from one another’s books.
And reading alone doesn’t make you smarter. Some of the most mindless people I know devour a book every two days, books carefully chosen to provide predictable entertainment and predictable rhetoric.
The top 10 book publishers did more business last year than the major movie studios. Bookstores were the second-fastest-growing retail industry during the past 10 years (after restaurants). Much of their sales consist of gossipy bestsellers, formula romances and thrillers, and self-help homilies. Can you honestly say that Sidney Sheldon’s trash novels are better than his classic series “I Dream of Jeannie”?
Still, the book business has always had room for a healthy highbrow segment, while TV used to have very little intellectual content. The networks originally promised to bring high culture to every corner of the nation. But after a while, culture shows like Alistair Cooke’s “Omnibus” were replaced by westerns and cops. By 1960, you were basically stuck with light family entertainment every night of the week.
But that was the Old TV. The rise of PBS in the early ’70s was the first step in making a New TV. That was soon followed by the domestic satellites that made cable networks feasible. Also at this time, a few “video artists” started experimenting on new, smaller cameras and recorders; they explored subjects and styles that video could handle differently from film.
Home VCRs showed up in 1976 and brought a new relationship between programs and viewers. People tend to be more involved with a program that they’ve physically left the house to get. Tapes let anyone examine a show or movie, to study the techniques that make a production work. With the camcorder, millions could apply this knowledge toward making their own material.
The New TV goes beyond just watching “whatever’s on.” You can (indeed, you have to) plan in advance. Choose from the best of broadcast, cable and home video, and you can have several evenings a month of quality viewing, to complement the other activities of a well-cultured person.
Mainstream TV entertainment is, on the whole, smarter than mainstream movies with all their lurid violence and visceral special effects. If I had kids, I’d rather they like “Beverly Hills 90210” than Steven Seagal.
CNN may be the first American mass news medium to take everyday, non-disaster news from other countries seriously. Even the network newscasts have a better eye on the nation these days. We get to see the human survival stories behind the abstract word “recession.” in the ’60s, we’d only get to hear what various pinstripe-clad analysts had to say about it.
The cost of TV production and the limitations of TV distribution used to mean that only a few people got to make any. But now, adequate-quality camcorders can be rented for $10 a day. To see what a few smart people with camcorders can do, watch the independent documentary series “The ’90s” (which KCTS will only show at 3 a.m. Wednesday nights). There are also scattered spots in the MTV schedule that expose new visions, new ways of seeing and hearing things.
Also, check out the video-art screenings held at 911 Media Arts, the Vancouver Art Gallery, and elsewhere. You’ll see a generation of people making their own TV, questioning the preconceptions of their culture. People who expose themselves to the widest range of influences, who learn new views and new languages — verbal, aural, and visual.
The New TV is an almost limitless tool. It’s not always pretty, but neither is life. Like any medium, it has its strengths and its weaknesses. Its main weaknesses are its informality and its overambitiousness (it seldom has the time or money to do anything perfectly). Its main strength is that it can take the widest spectrum of material and bring it into the home. Now there’s a new TV, and a new generation of people using these tools to make their own audiovisual vocabulary. The enemy of good writing isn’t other media, it’s bad writing (resulting from sloppy thinking). Taking control of your media is a big step in thinking for yourself.
(Clark Humphrey reads plenty of books, some of which he reviews in The Times. He also edits Misc., a monthly newsletter on popular culture.)
